Carson v. Robotkay

W.D. Washington

Carson v. Robotkay

DecidedJune 30, 2021

Docket3:18-cv-05858

StatusUnknown

This text of Carson v. Robotkay (Carson v. Robotkay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carson v. Robotkay, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA 9 ROBERT CARSON, Case No. 3:18-cv-05858-MJP 10 Plaintiff, AGREED PRETRIAL ORDER 11 v. 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13 Defendant. 14 15 I. JURISDICTION 16 Jurisdiction in this matter is premised upon the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 17 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2679(b)(1). The United States has waived sovereign immunity for the 18 negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of any federal employee acting within the scope of 19 employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable 20 to the plaintiff in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 21 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b). The parties agree that Washington state law substantively governs the 22 claim to be adjudicated at trial in this matter. 23 // 24 // 1 II. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES 2 Plaintiff will pursue the following claims for relief: 3 Monetary damages for the property damages to his car; monetary damages for medical 4 specials; and monetary damages for his general damages of past, present and future pain and 5 suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life. 6 The United States will pursue the following affirmative defenses/claims for relief:

7 1. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were not proximately caused by the negligent or 8 wrongful act of an employee of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiff’s current lumbar and 9 cervical pain is caused by a pre-existing degenerative joint disease and ossification of posterior 10 longitudinal ligament (“OPLL”), unrelated to the motor vehicle collision, but symptomatic at the 11 time. 12 2. To the extent this Court finds that the current spinal pain is causally related to the 13 collision, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages with respect to the same. Specifically, 14 Plaintiff has repeatedly declined both diagnostic and therapeutic treatment options targeted at 15 relieving his cervical and lumbar pain. Such declinations are unreasonable and have more likely 16 than not adversely affected his recovery. See Fox v. Evans, 127 Wash. App. 300, 306 (2005).

17 3. Plaintiff is not entitled to $2,220.01 for property damage to his 1993 Geo Metro 18 because the only repair estimate disclosed sets forth repairs beyond those caused by the subject 19 collision and, further, Plaintiff voluntarily salvaged the vehicle for parts in 2018. 20 4. Plaintiff’s total damages must be limited to no more than $164,964.44, the only 21 damage computation previously disclosed during discovery. See FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), 22 26(e)(1)(A), and 37(c)(1). 23 // 24 // 1 III. ADMITTED FACTS 2 1. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a United States Postal 3 Service (“USPS”) employee on January 15, 2017, at approximately 1:11PM. 4 2. The collision occurred at the intersection of E. Washington Street and N. Rhodefer 5 Road in Sequim, Washington. 6 3. The USPS employee was executing a right-hand turn from a stop sign on N.

7 Rhodefer Road when he collided with Plaintiff. 8 4. Plaintiff was traveling east on E. Washington Street. 9 5. The USPS employee collided with Plaintiff’s rear passenger’s side door. 10 6. The USPS employee was traveling approximately 2-5 MPH. 11 7. Plaintiff was traveling approximately 30 MPH. 12 8. Both drivers declined medical treatment at the scene. 13 9. The United States admits that the employee failed to yield the right-of-way and 14 thus caused the collision, but disputes the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s damages. 15 IV. ISSUES OF LAW 16 The following issues of law must be determined by the Court:

17 1. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the 18 full repair estimate of $2,220.01 for his 1993 Geo Metro? 19 2. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his claimed past 20 medical expenses were reasonable, necessary, and related to the subject collision? 21 3. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he requires future 22 medical care and that any such care is reasonable, necessary, and related to the subject collision? 23 // 24 // 1 4. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he experienced pain, 2 disability, and suffering as a result of the collision and/or will with reasonable probability, 3 continue to experience pain, disability, and suffering in the future? 4 5. Has the United States proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff 5 failed to mitigate his damages? 6 V. EXPERT WITNESSES

7 The following expert witnesses may be called by Plaintiff at trial: 8 Donna Moore, M.D. – Will Testify Medical Consulting Associates, PLLC 9 9226 Bay Shore Drive NW, Suite 230 Silverdale, WA 98383 10 Tel. (360) 692-6202

11 Dr. Moore is a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation physician who conducted an 12 Independent Medical Examination on Plaintiff on October 22, 2018, at the request of Plaintiff’s 13 attorney, Greg S. Memovich. She will testify regarding Plaintiff’s medical specials and 14 Plaintiff’s treatment, injuries, pain, suffering, disabilities and possible future treatment, pain, 15 suffering, and disabilities. 16 The following expert witnesses may be called by the United States at trial: 17 Joshua Shatsky, M.D. – Will Testify WestSound Orthopaedics - Silverdale 18 4409 NW Anderson Hill Road Silverdale, WA 98383 19 Tel. (360) 698-6630

20 Dr. Shatsky is an orthopedic surgeon employed by WestSound Orthopaedics, and is 21 among Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Dr. Shatsky may be called by the United States to testify 22 as to his multiple examinations, observations, interactions, and Plaintiff’s prognosis as of January 23 2018, including recommendations made regarding future care and treatment, which Plaintiff 24 1 declined. He may also be asked to interpret the MRI of Plaintiff’s spine from May 2017 and 2 testify regarding its significance from an orthopedic perspective. 3 Wilson Chang, M.D. – Will Testify Swedish Pain Services 4 601 Broadway, Suite 530 Seattle, WA 98122 5 Tel. (206) 386-2013

6 Dr. Chang is a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Specialist employed by Swedish 7 Pain Services, and was among Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Dr. Chang may be called by the 8 United States to testify as to his multiple examinations, observations, interactions, and Plaintiff’s 9 prognosis as of October 2021. Dr. Chang will discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic 10 treatment options recommended but rejected by Plaintiff during his treatment of him. Dr. Chang 11 will discuss Plaintiff’s continued nonadherence to pain medications and belligerent behavior with 12 his staff that ultimately lead to Plaintiff’s dismissal from his services. 13 VI. OTHER WITNESSES 14 The following lay witnesses may be called by Plaintiff at trial: 15 1. Robert Carson c/o Greg Memovich, Counsel for Plaintiff 16 Will testify regarding liability and damages. 17 The following lay witnesses may be called by the United States at trial: 18 2. Jason Robotkay – Possible Witness Only 19 c/o Erin K. Hoar, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for United States

20 Mr. Robotkay was the driver of the U.S. Postal Service vehicle that collided with Mr. 21 Carson’s vehicle on January 15, 2017. Mr. Robotkay may be called by the United States to rebut 22 any claims by Plaintiff regarding the mechanism of the collision and Plaintiff’s presentation at 23 the scene. 24 // 1 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI